In Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that three current or former Starbucks Corporation employees had standing to bring claims against Starbucks arising out of the theft of a laptop containing unencrypted, personally identifiable information (PII), despite the fact the plaintiffs had not suffered any financial harm. However, the court also affirmed the district court’s finding that plaintiffs did not have a cause of action for negligence or contract liability under Washington law. In reaching its conclusion that the plaintiffs had standing, the Ninth Circuit found that the possibility of identify theft was “a credible threat of harm” sufficient to meet the injury-in-fact requirements of standing.

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.

CONSUMER WEBSITES

The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by the use of this site. The attorney listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Supplemental Terms.